Skip to main content
Log in

Pseudorandom generators and learning algorithms forAC 0

  • Published:
computational complexity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For anyAC 0 functionf ofn bits, there is a polynomialp such that anyp(logn)-wise decomposable distribution “fools”f. In other words,f cannot distinguish between the pseudorandom strings in the distribution and truly random strings. The polynomialp depends only on the size and depth of the circuit computingf.

This subsumes and extends the class of distributions that were previously known to foolAC 0 functions, and partially answers an open question posed by Linial and Nisan in 1990, as to whether every polylog-wise independent distribution foolsAC 0 functions or not.

Each polylog-wise decomposable distribution serves as a fixed training set of examples for learning (approximately interpolating) allAC 0 functions computed by circuits of some fixed depth and size. Furthermore, small, natural distributions (training sets) exist that yield deterministic learning algorithms that run in timeO (2polylogn) forAC 0 functions, where the degree of the polylog depends on the size and depth of the circuit to be learnt.

This improves on the randomized algorithms with the same time complexity given, for example, by Linialet al. in 1989, where the examples for the training set are picked randomly from specific distributions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. M. Bellare, A technique for upper bounding the spectral norm with applications to learning. InProc. 5th Ann. IEEE Symp. on Computational Learning Theory (COLT), 1992, 62–70.

  2. J. Bruck, Harmonic analysis of polynomial threshold functions.SIAM Journal of Discrete Mathematics,3:2 (1990), 168–177.

    Google Scholar 

  3. R. Boppana and M. Sipser,The complexity of finite functions. Technical Report MIT/LCS/TM-405, Massachussetts Institute of Technology, Laboratory for Computer Sciences, 1989.

  4. J. Bruck andR. Smolensky, Polynomial Threshold Functions, AC0 Functions and Spectral Norms.SIAM Journal of Computing,21:1 (1992), 33–42.

    Google Scholar 

  5. H. Dym and H.P. McKean,Fourier series and integrals. Probability and Mathematical Statistics series, Academic Press, 1972.

  6. M. Down and M. Sitharam,Shannon bounds for functions over 2 n . Technical Report #90-12-1, Kent State University, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, 1990.

  7. M. Furst, J. Jackson, and S. Smith, Improved learning ofAC 0 functions. InProc. 5th Ann. IEEE Symp. on Computational Learning Theory (COLT), 1992, 317–325.

  8. M. Furst, J. Saxe, andM. Sipser, Parity, circuits and the polynomial time hierarchy.Mathematical Systems Theory 17 (1984), 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  9. J. Håstad,Computational limitations of small depth circuits. Ph.D. thesis, Massachussetts Institute of Technology press, 1986.

  10. J. Kahn, J. Kalai, and N. Linial, The influence of variables on Boolean functions.Proc. 29th Ann. IEEE Symp. Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 1988, 68–80.

  11. E. Kushilevitz andY. Mansour, Learning decision trees using the Fourier transform.SIAM Journal of Computing 22:6 (1993), 1331–1348.

    Google Scholar 

  12. N. Linial, Y. Mansour, and N. Nisan, Constant depth circuits, Fourier transforms, and learnability. InProc. 30th Ann. IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 1989, 574–579. To appear inJACM.

  13. N. Linial andN. Nisan, Approximate inclusion-exclusion.Combinatorica 10:4 (1990), 349–365.

    Google Scholar 

  14. F.J. MacWiliams and N.J.A. Sloane,The theory of error-correcting codes. North Holland, 1977.

  15. N. Nisan and A.W. Widgerson, Hardness vs. randomness. InProc. 29th Ann. IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 1988, 2–11. To appear inJCSS.

  16. N. Nisan and M. Szegedy, On the degree of Boolean functions as real polynomials. InProc. 24th Ann. ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, 1992, 462–467.

  17. A.A. Razborov, Lower bounds on the monotone complexity of some Boolean functions.Soviet Mathematics Doklady,31 (1985), 354–357.

    Google Scholar 

  18. C.E. Shannon, Communication in the presence of noise. InProceedings of the IEEE,37 (1949), 10–21.

  19. K.I. Siu andJ. Bruck, On the power of threshold circuits with small weights.SIAM Journal of Discrete Mathematics,4:3 (1991), 423–435.

    Google Scholar 

  20. A.C. Yao, Lower bounds by probabilistic arguments. InProc. 24th Ann. IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 1983, 420–428.

  21. A.C. Yao, Separating the polynomial time hierarchy by oracles. InProc. 26th Ann. IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 1985, 1–10.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sitharam, M. Pseudorandom generators and learning algorithms forAC 0 . Comput Complexity 5, 248–266 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01206321

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01206321

Key words

Subject classifications

Navigation